(GAMERS ONLY) i7 vs 955/ is 300$ worth it?

[bboynatural]

I predict with my super special awesome inner power that a Phenom II 955 would not only rape the i7, but also keep WAY more consistent Frames.

 

[IzzyCraft]

DUm Dum there is an old saying that your only as fast as your weakest link

Pretty sure it's "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."

 

[bboynatural]

OH SUP HATER! YOU FINALLY WOKE UP!!
I tought you will never read my thread!
I actually missed you...after all, your the reason why I started this...

 

[kelfen]

Pretty sure it's "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link."

yup; just am so tired that I had a brain fart

 

[randomizer]

http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTI0MTI0MjEwMUh6Z01pVGpleDJfNF81X2wuZ2lm

Heres an example.
Notice how i7 and QX9650 makes HUGE gaps, sometime coming as low as the Phenom X3, and a lame x4 810 (way to go [H] comparing AMD worst cpu to intel's best cpu...more biased, you will never get.)

Someone explained a while ago the reason for those sudden, across-the-board drops in framerate, but I don't remember what they said.

 

[bboynatural]

aww sucks, it would have been interesting...
But yeah as the old saying say.

In fact, I find minimum frame rate to be extremly needed.

I would rather play with a card that do 40-30 then play with a card that does 45-25..

25 fps is HORRIBLE because for an image to be consistent, your eyes need to see at least 30 FPS, while you dont see MUCH of a difference between 45 and 40.
This is one of the MAIN reason why I will never go i7.

We don't know about future games, but I DONT want to see 25 FPS EVER AGAIN.
I played the whole re5 on pc on my super special awesome bottlenecked HD4850 with (hold your breath) athlon x64 3500+ with 25 FPS.
Even on unreal tournament 3, I usually got aroun 70 fps, but whenever I look at a far distance, or lot of action, I drop to 25, making the whole 70FPS useless. Id rather play 30-25, so that I dont get constent image speed changes.

Fps dropping is far worst then a low "high" fps limit.

 

[randomizer]

I don't want to go off-topic, but minimum framerate tells you nothing about how smooth the game is. It tells you how long it took to render the slowest frame, and nothing else.

 

[IzzyCraft]

mainstream theme in your thread does distube me.

Mainstream gamers run at 1280x1024 or 1440x900 or 1680x1050 or less, CPU is usually a second thought hardly the usual limiting factor in performance for the avg gamer. Usually when the cpu is the limiting factor the rig is just so old it's more like the whole dam thing is the limiting factor.

Granted if i was making a budget esp under 1200 for the whole system. I'd probably just buy again i5 with single card solution just because i like more rounded system performance, but if i was just going for gaming i'd probably have to go with 940 and crossfire just to avoid using a nvidia chipset. As much as i love nvidia and yes i do i've noticed enough imange differences in games to prefer nvidia's cards which is why i have a i7 rig (although it only has 1 card in it it's mostly for transcoding and editing).

and stumble though something ionno was i making a point i think i side tracked myself

anyways if i was the avg gamer running off my shitty what 700 dollar budget hell lets make it 800.

I'd probably get a amd's 940 and crossfire 2 cards again assuming i wasn't already bais on image that nvidia cards produce and just want numbers high pointless frame rate numbers for resolutions my tiny shitty monitor that I as the avg gamer don't realize how shitty my contrast is how blinding bright my backlight is and how off my colors are on that tiny monitor that i put an after thought into.

again i think i side tracked myself

on a "avg gamer" budget (400-800) if i was building just for gaming on the sub 1680x1050 resolution thingy. I wouldn't hesitate to buy AMD cpu over intel, infact i'd probably be inclined to buy a 710/720 ~$110 or a 940~$170 seeing as intel Q9400 is a bit too pricy for that range 20 bucks is a lot and games start to lean to being much more beneficial of a 3 and 4th core.

But alais i am not a person who only concern hell who's main concern is gaming performance, i love HT it has made several programs i use on a regular basis so much more bearable in waiting times. Multi-tasking>gaming to me a pc i build is never lopsided in purpose just because a pc to me is much more then just a 1 purpose machine.


Okay if i had a point in that eye sore of a post and you were able to understand what i was saying you diverse a cookie or something.

I love intel and i7 as i love HT and when AMD comes up with cpu's that perform in the area's that make me cry because it cripples my system for hours while rendering or w.e then i'll love amd too or when my prioritizes change to playing games.

i love nvidia cuz it's the way it's meant to be played haha well it's just the way it's meant to look i've prefer how in several games don't ask me which games like hell i'll remember a list how when there are imagine discrepancies in a game i just perfer how nvidia's looks. it's usually more cinematic if you get me. Although if i was going form a gaming/advantage look usually i think ATI's cards would give that edge, too bad i'm not a fps gamer which sadly i find is like every other game that comes out esp on the PC.

tired~

 

[kelfen]

I like turtles

 

[michaelmk86]

Now you might ask why I took the Asus Rampage II extreme? Well I matched the quality of the item of course.
It's simple to take the lamest Mobo that cost less and will never allow your so-claimed 4.2GHZ overclocking and make the Phenom II 955 look horrible, but no it doesnt work that way. Even If I take THE LAMESTmobo for i7:

Just for your information, the ASUS PT6 (that cost 180€) can OC the i7-920 to 4,2GHz with no problem. So you don’t really need the expensive Asus Rampage II extreme.

EXTREMLY BAD speculations that PHENOM II 955 WILL BOTTLENECK 2 HD5870?

Yes that is true a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below)

Once again, notice the MASSIVE drop of the i7 when you crank the AA, while the Phenom II 955 doesnt even flinch one bit.

Let me explain some things to you because you seem than you don’t understand some things correctly.

The AA has nothing to do with the CPU.
This benchmark shows smaller difference between the i7-920 and PII-955 when AA is on because AA stress the GPU not the CPU(also remember that the i7 uses slower GPU than the PII).
When AA is on GPU stress increase while the CPU stress decrease.
When AA is off GPU stress decrease while the CPU stress increase.

If you have a slow CPU with a fast GPU there is not much of a difference in fps between AA on and AA off
On the other hand
If you have a fast CPU with a fast GPU there is a big difference in fps between AA on and AA off

Prototype and World at conflict seems to be game that Phenom II has problem with, Dunno why.

Prototype and World at conflict are CPU intensive games and because of that PII performer much slower that the i7.

Stalker and Crysis are GPU intensive games and because of that 2 HD4890 performer faster than the 2 HD4870 regardless of what CPU you are using.

The point is that i7 give more performance than PII in games if you don’t want to believe that I don’t care, keep going with your nonsense.

 

[hallowed_dragon]

From my point of view a gamer needs :
- a decent CPU (triple core or mid-range quad < 200$),
- a high-end GPU (4870+ , with nowadays standard 5850+),
- a big monitor (22' with at least 1680x1050),
- fast response keyboard,
- fast response mouse,
- perfect sound gaming headset.

Because of the resolution the main item in the build is the GPU which should run all games at max detail with 4xAA (at least). Anything less IMHO is not a gaming rig. If your rig has at least 60 FPS in all current FPS games that dont suck @ss (this means no Crysis) and 30-40 in RTS, 50-60 RPGs then you dont have anything to upgrade too. Now, all this can be made with both Intel/AMD + ATI/nVidia parts with less than 1000$. If you put more money into a rig, I think you are overcompensating for something else , because there will always be some1 else with the specs I mentioned that will own your @ss in any game even if you have a I7 975+ quad 5870 (or 3 SLI 285). My lame 2 cents.

 

[bboynatural]

Just for your information, the ASUS PT6 (that cost 180€) can OC the i7-920 to 4,2GHz with no problem. So you don’t really need the expensive Asus Rampage II extreme.


Yes that is true a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below)


Let me explain some things to you because you seem than you don’t understand some things correctly.

The AA has nothing to do with the CPU.
This benchmark shows smaller difference between the i7-920 and PII-955 when AA is on because AA stress the GPU not the CPU(also remember that the i7 uses slower GPU than the PII).
When AA is on GPU stress increase while the CPU stress decrease.
When AA is off GPU stress decrease while the CPU stress increase.

If you have a slow CPU with a fast GPU there is not much of a difference in fps between AA on and AA off
On the other hand
If you have a fast CPU with a fast GPU there is a big difference in fps between AA on and AA off



Prototype and World at conflict are CPU intensive games and because of that PII performer much slower that the i7.

Stalker and Crysis are GPU intensive games and because of that 2 HD4890 performer faster than the 2 HD4870 regardless of what CPU you are using.

The point is that i7 give more performance than PII in games if you don’t want to believe that I don’t care, keep going with your nonsense.

Speculations. You don't have no proof that Phenom II 955 can bottleneck, your basically saying, "yeah it does, chut".

How can a cpu of the same caliber then a i5 bottleneck 2 video cards?
While the Q6600 still doesnt bottleneck (or very few bottleneck) no card yet??

Keep your speculations for you. And how do you explain the moving fps this time?
I did understand the AA thingy btw, but I also mentioned that the difference in AA management between a HD4890 and a HD4870 should never be this different because it's basically the same chip.

Cpu intensive games? Or just plain non-tweacked games that were release before a second check up?
I wonder.
In fact phenom II 955 performs better in crysis, THE most cpu intensive game, so your affirmation is purely "I think so".

Once again, your AA explanation is still so-so. As far as it comes from the GPU, the CPU has to manage something in it, or else
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-6-Performance-World-in-Conflict.html

How do you explain such a result with THE SAME GPU?
While world in conflict is usually the "cpu intensive game" your talking about.

Whats your explanation based on nothing this time?

 

[bboynatural]

Oh and one last thing, the mobo just for my information.
I can show you lots of mobo in AM3 that cost 130$ and can overclock till 4GHZ "just for your information"

That still doesnt make them "Quality" and Recomended mobos.
I simply chose THE BEST mobo for AM3,
I HAVE to chose THE BEST mobo for i7,
Or the comparaison becomes biased.

And anyway that low price card is THE lowest in the whole LGA1366, and the price is still 250$ more.
One last thing, it's P6T, and theres a lot of them so your gonna have to be way more precise.
I guess your tlaking about ASUS P6T SE S.1366 INT X58/ICH10R ATX 3PCIE X16,6D.DDR3-1333MHZ, 1600/1333 FSB,SATA,RAID0,1394
MANUFACTURER: ASUS INTEL SKT.1366, but anyway, it's 40$ more then the mobo I chose.
300$ more, for no apparent advantage If you dont zip/video encode.

Anything to say? By the way, you do realize your bottlenecking thingy is not true right?
How can a card that was released 1 week ago be bottlenecked by a CPU that is still new and very powerfull? Show me stats, or it's not a reason.

I show this: http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-5-Performance-S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-Clear-Sky.html

We start seeing bottlenecking at maximum resolutions and cranked graphics.

Do you see anything? and now your saying that 2 HD5870 will be bottlenecked? It look more like no.

 

[bboynatural]

322 views...I think I made my point pass!!

 

[chef7734]

First off why are you posting about cpu's in the gpu forum? Second many of use have the 17 because of support for both crossfire and sli. It does not matter which card we use as we have multi gpu spport for both and can get he best gpu set out at the time. Another thing is you can not comaprethe best 17 mobo with the best a,3 mobo. They are not on the same caliber. The i7 mobo has more features and performance enhancements the am3 is not capable of. We buy the 17 for the overall package and capabilities not just for the cpu.

 

[michaelmk86]

322 views...I think I made my point pass!!

No you didn’t made your point, i7 is a faster CPU than PII the prices difference is not like that to every country, so most people prefer to go with the i7 instead of the PII because of the performance.

Do you see anything? and now your saying that 2 HD5870 will be bottlenecked? It look more like no.

I am 100% sure that a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below) but you seem that you have some difficulties to accept it.

In fact phenom II 955 performs better in crysis, THE most cpu intensive game, so your affirmation is purely "I think so".

There is no a single game that a phenom II 955 can perform better than the i7-920 (this is true only in your dreams)
Crysis is more GPU intensive game. So in this case both PII and i7 are not fully utilized because the GPU work with a 100% load, as a result PII and i7 to perform identical. When you lower the resolution you see that the i7 performs better in crysis than the PII because the GPU have less to do (less pixels to draw) and the CPU tries harder to keep up with the GPU.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-5-Performance-S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-Clear-Sky.html

How do you explain such a result with THE SAME GPU?
While world in conflict is usually the "cpu intensive game" your talking about.

One HD4890 is not powerful enough the stress the PII or i7.(results are identical regardless of what CPU you are using.)
On the other hand 2 HD4890’s are powerful enough to max the PII but not the i7 (more GPU power here and the PII show his weakness)

 

[bboynatural]

No you didn’t made your point, i7 is a faster CPU than PII the prices difference is not like that to every country, so most people prefer to go with the i7 instead of the PII because of the performance.

I am 100% sure that a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below) but you seem that you have some difficulties to accept it.


There is no a single game that a phenom II 955 can perform better than the i7-920 (this is true only in your dreams)
Crysis is more GPU intensive game. So in this case both PII and i7 are not fully utilized because the GPU work with a 100% load, as a result PII and i7 to perform identical. When you lower the resolution you see that the i7 performs better in crysis than the PII because the GPU have less to do (less pixels to draw) and the CPU tries harder to keep up with the GPU.




One HD4890 is not powerful enough the stress the PII or i7.(results are identical regardless of what CPU you are using.)
On the other hand 2 HD4890’s are powerful enough to max the PII but not the i7 (more GPU power here and the PII show his weakness)

You do realize nothing of what you actually said makes sense right??

Ok I must give a point to chef7734 and to answer him, it's just because this thread started here in this forum in another thread so basically it's not coming out of nowhere, I just copy/paste from this other thread, And I tought the best place to talk about GAMING performances was not in the CPU forum but more in the GPU one.

No you didn’t made your point, i7 is a faster CPU than PII the prices difference is not like that to every country, so most people prefer to go with the i7 instead of the PII because of the performance.

Well The price difference is not the same, but is present everywhere. Now wheter you pay 100$, or 300$, it's still more money for no ACTUAL better performance in gaming.

I am 100% sure that a PHENOM II 955 will bottleneck 2 HD5870’s (in resolution 1920x1200 or below) but you seem that you have some difficulties to accept it.

Do you think anybody here care about what you are 100% sure about? Are you some kind of medium?
We care about benchmarks here sir, and 80% of these benchmarks that PEOPLE CARE ABOUT prove good enough that the if you game only, and especially if you use ATI Cards, your FAR better going with a Phenom, and use the 300$ your gonna save (250 EVEN if you pick the least good mobo) to get yourself a better GPU. Now to say something as stupid as "im 100% sure", You really must be out of your mind...

There is no a single game that a phenom II 955 can perform better than the i7-920 (this is true only in your dreams)

Dude, your starting to sound MORE and MORE like one big damn idiot that doesnt even actually CHECK the links I provide:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,76,77&tid=4

Wtf is this? Phenom II 955 beats i7 by 10 FPS. 10. This could make the difference between smooth and ugly gameplay?
Whas that in my dream? NO. On a professional hardware site.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-4-Performance-Crysis-Warhead.html
And this??

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-5-Performance-S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-Clear-Sky.html
Even outperform i7 in SINGLE gpu.

http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-7-Performance-Devil-May-Cry-4.html

Dude. What are you even claiming? All Im showing here is proofs that phenom II 955 beat i7, and this is not in my dream, your the one who won't admit facts Im showing.

Crysis is more GPU intensive game. So in this case both PII and i7 are not fully utilized because the GPU work with a 100% load, as a result PII and i7 to perform identical. When you lower the resolution you see that the i7 performs better in crysis than the PII because the GPU have less to do (less pixels to draw) and the CPU tries harder to keep up with the GPU.

That, is by FAR the most stupid thing I heard until now.
It is somewhat true, But who cares about your "real" cpu power if it cant keep up with your GPU? That's the whole point, Intel CPU seem to have problem generating constent Frame rates.
And to check if there is any CPU bottlenecking, We crank the game to the max for BOTH Cpu with the same GPU, and chek wich one will perform less good. Your whole point is totaly stupid, makes no sense.
Go learn how to we use technology before claiming that you know anything.

One HD4890 is not powerful enough the stress the PII or i7.(results are identical regardless of what CPU you are using.)
On the other hand 2 HD4890’s are powerful enough to max the PII but not the i7

Once again, one of the most STUPID thing that was ever claimed here on this forum.

You said something true, then some kind of total made up bs.
2HD4890 are enough to stress the CPU true.
But it's NOW that we should see IDENTICAL RESULTS FROM BOTH CPU. So how can you explain all of this WHILE MAKING SENSE PLEASE:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,76,77&tid=4
and
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-4-Performance-Crysis-Warhead.html
and
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-5-Performance-S.T.A.L.K.E.R.-Clear-Sky.html
and
http://www.modreactor.com/english/Reviews/Test-ATI-HD-4890-1GB-CrossFire-AMD-Phenom-II-955-BE-vs-Intel-Core-i7-920/Page-7-Performance-Devil-May-Cry-4.html

How?? i7 should NEVER drop under the Phenom II 955. NEVER. and in ALL of these benchies, it definitly beat the i7.
Once again, go learn about the consistence of Intel CPU when it comes to gaming, and come back.

In fact, this should be enough to make the whole i7 gamer market fail.
How come a CPU with such a better architecture lose to a AMD Cpu THIS badly?
It should RAPE him, leaving him no space to breath. But no, it either perform same, or simply less good.
And GAMERS pay AROUND 300$ more for this. that 300$ couldv got em a better GPU. How stupid can this be?

Once again please never mention again that Phenom II 955 will be bottleneck by 2 HD5870, NOBODY here cares about what you THINK. Give us proofs or stop whining.
In fact, just go buy that damn i7 and leave this thread if you don't have anything to show.
This is no discussion about your speculations or your feelings toward a CPU.

 

[trkorecky]

I'll also back up the claim that a single Phenom II 955 will not fully utilize 2 HD5870's in those resolutions. Judging by the current crop of benchmarks, it looks like my 4870 X2 and the new 5870 are relatively close in performance (besides a few framerates here and there on most games, only a few stand out with a significant performance difference on one or the other). My Q6600, when overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.2 shows massive gains (don't have any screenshots for proof at the moment) in framerates at 1920x1200, and clocking it further to 3.6GHz continues showing improvement. A CPU not much more powerful than what I'm running has no chance of keeping up with nearly double the graphics hardware.

 

[chef7734]

If you clock them at the same speed the 17 will beat the pII at the same speed. a 920 will perform the same as a 975 if you clock it to 3.2

 

[bboynatural]

I'll also back up the claim that a single Phenom II 955 will not fully utilize 2 HD5870's in those resolutions. Judging by the current crop of benchmarks, it looks like my 4870 X2 and the new 5870 are relatively close in performance (besides a few framerates here and there on most games, only a few stand out with a significant performance difference on one or the other). My Q6600, when overclocked from 2.4GHz to 3.2 shows massive gains (don't have any screenshots for proof at the moment) in framerates at 1920x1200, and clocking it further to 3.6GHz continues showing improvement. A CPU not much more powerful than what I'm running has no chance of keeping up with nearly double the graphics hardware.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,73,76,77&tid=4

Phenom II 955 is still better and by enough Fps (~30) to not bottleneck a scaling.

Once again people, No proofs even I can claim anything that might make sense but for some people just won't.
Just go read the End of Fermi Hopes thread I made.
This looks like the most plausible speculation, yet is just a speculation.
Until we see benchmarks, It's only speculation, backed off by many people that's all. And I bet it will seem like real if many back it up, but MANY people said that i7 performs better then any AMD Cpu, and the result is in this thread.

If you clock them at the same speed the 17 will beat the pII at the same speed. a 920 will perform the same as a 975 if you clock it to 3.2

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,73,76,77&tid=2
I would rather want benchmarks to proof that it will reach the performance, but it seems that Phenom II 955 reach the performance of a i7 965 quite fast here.

Once again, any frame rate over 90 at maximum quality should not be taken into consideration. But even if it is, I wonder if it's worth the extra 300$ because WHATEVER your build is, your gonna have to change in 1 or 2 year to catch up. So Id rather save 300, get better GPU wich will make my rig last a bit longer.

 

[trkorecky]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/cpu.php?pid=69,70,71,73,76,77&tid=4

...Once again, any frame rate over 90 at maximum quality should not be taken into consideration...

Way to invalidate yourself.

 

[bboynatural]

woops sorry, TYPO. I meant 60 fps, depending on your monitor refresh rate, wich is 60 for most people.
Pure typo.

 

[trkorecky]

I fail to see how changing the minimum threshold somehow makes your point valid. They're all well over 60FPS, damn near double for all of them. Why spend more for a Phenom II when a low-mid end C2Q works just as well?

What graphics card are those benchmarks using?

 

[rnalvine]

Cool story bro.

Meanwhile, I recently purchased an i7-920 ($215 @microcenter) + Asrock extreme mobo ($170) + 3x2gb Corsair xms3 ($130) = $515 (usd).

OC'd the processor to 4.0gz with an after-market air cooler & the memory to 1600mz on this "cheap" motherboard. Prime95 stable for 48 hours. No hiccups since.

Coupled with a 5870, the gaming performance is spectacular (despite the 1st gen, non-optimized gpu drivers and games that are not yet built for directx11 and maximizing multi-threaded/multi-core cps). Even if I didn't benefit from the i7's performance with fairly regular video encoding, I'd have still selected this combo simply for the gaming performance now and into the future.

I can drop in another 5870 (in the second x16 slot) and still have enough pci lanes/slots to maintain my tv tuner card, wireless card and and parallel port card (for the old laser jet). Plus, I can drop in an i9 and there's also plenty of room for 6gb additional memory (or more) in a few months (or years) if I so choose.

If you choose to save a couple dollars and take the hit to gaming performance, enjoy your AMD system and your cherry-picked benchmarks. I could have downgraded to an AMD system, but the savings versus permormance hit + future upgradability constraints were not worth the meager savings.

But yeah, if I were to build a low budget gaming rig, I'd probably pick an AMD cpu.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

i7 920s cost an amazing $200 at Microcenter.

PhenomIIs are on the same level of the upper Core2Quads.

Yes, I suppose in a specific game and in a specific setting, a PhenomII x4 will be able to beat an i7. But then again, a Core2Duo E8500 can beat a PhenomII x4 and an i7 in a specific game and specific setting as well.

Overall, the i7 dominates the PIIx4, just like a PIIx4 would dominate a C2D E8500

The Intel competition for PhenomIIs in terms of price and performance is still technically the Core2Quads and the new i5s, not the i7s.